Comparing The Communist Manifesto: A Worker's Call To Arms

The Communist Manifesto: A Worker's Call to Arms

Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto to hopefully give some kind of guidance to his fellow workers or proletarians. It was to offer education as to their exploitation as a worker in a capitalistic society and the means to change it. When this was written it shook the social and economic worlds. It did so probably because their was some truth in what he wrote and dared to bring to light.

Communism was the end result of Marx's beliefs. That you were a Marxist if you agreed with what he said and communism was what you all worked to achieve. He believed in the uniting of the working class or proletariat as a whole and that their immediate goals were "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." (Marx 66) to achieve these
goals Marx laid out a set of loose guidelines in which to follow. One was to abolish private property. Not to forever do away with private property but rather the "abolition of bourgeois property." (Marx 67) He argued that private property was not really private if it was used to further exploit the proletariat. He made a case that property was synonymous with capital, and that capital should be converted into common property. Thereby losing its characteristics of classes in which it was previously used to exploit. If the proletariats were truly given the chance to own property and to have capital, they would not continue to fall deeper into the hole that the bourgeois are creating for them.

It is important to point out that Marx believed, "The history of existing society is the history of class struggle." (Marx 50) All conflicts are created because the bourgeois exploit the proletariat to get ahead in society.
The few bourgeois control most of the wealth or capital in the current society while the many proletariat are exploited and driven into further poverty by those few in the upper class. Marx said to further advance communism and rectify this problem you must do away with minimum wage, or the "quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer." (Marx 68) If there is always minimum wage, it offers no real chance for the proletariat to get out of his poverty. Also, he will continually be manipulated by the bourgeois for the advancement of themselves. It is argued by the bourgeois that doing this will do away with individuality and freedom, but when they use the terms "individuality and freedom," they mean "bourgeois freedom and individuality." Marx agrees that to achieve real freedom you must do away with these existing
principles.

Marx's other means to achieve communism included the abolition of family. When said, it sounds like a dreadful thing, but to Marx it is meant to abolish the definitions the bourgeois use for family, capital, and so on. This definition of family by the bourgeois is one that is based "on capital, on private gain." (Marx 71) Bourgeois families are not really families and need to be redefined. Marx said that the abolition of family will take place automatically when bourgeois capital is eradicated. The bourgeois view their own wives and children as means of production. To Marx they are all fixated on the fact that they look to increase their wealth and affluence by any means necessary. Marxist and believers in communism must also use any means necessary to counteract these workings of bourgeois. Education is one of the tools needed to bring rise to the proletariat. If the proletariats are not educated in what is happening, they will never have the intellectual means to achieve their goal of unification.

With night there is always day, and so with Marx there is always Hayek. Though written almost one hundred years apart, they still have arguments for either belief. Hayek would reject Communism almost on the basis of its meaning of "common", whereas Marx believed that government should be collective or control most aspects of its nation. One of the most crucial observations as to why Hayek is opposed to any type of collective governments is "who, whom?" (Hayek 119) decides what is right and just for the people. How can one man or a small group of people become blind to what is to be governed and not be influenced by personal bias? At some point, the person or small group appointed will infringe on the societies rights as individuals. When the people have given up their rights for the good of the whole society, the government will then become totalitarian. The collective government is not blind and man is imperfect; therefore, more likely to become biased. To achieve the end result, the governments begin to do anything that is necessary. Likewise Marx stated the proletariat must do what is necessary to achieve their goals. Hayek states, "it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must […] break every moral rule he has ever known if it seems necessary to achieve the end set for him." (Hayek 166). How can a man break these moral codes? It begins in part with education of the people. This is one of Marx's core arguments of what to do to first achieve Communism. To educate and unite them on a single view Hayek says will bring them closer to breaking down old moral walls that might arise in the future. By doing this, the Marxist will create a new set of ethical principles held by their people to control them later when violence might be committed; they will not be confined by old moral standards. These reasons were why Hayek was so adamantly against collective governments and why he would reject Communism as the solution to any governmental problem.

Marx would argue back that the "who, whom" are only ruling in the interest of the rich bourgeois. This is why there is poverty and exploitation of the proletariats labor. Marx states, "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeois." (Marx 53) That is why he denounces the current governments and says that the interests are skewed and should be concerned with looking out for the society as a whole, not as an individual. The people of society would achieve true freedom and independence when the wealth is spread equally among the many rather than amassed among the few. Hayek argued that the people of collective societies will be educated to the point where they are stripped of their moral code and will do anything their leaders say, no matter the old consequences. Marx ,on the other hand, would voice that this is exactly what the bourgeois would say when they are afraid their precious and fragile hold on the masses is about to collapse because in education comes the power to initiate change for your advancement. Without it you are confined to what is told to you by the exploiter and accepted by the uneducated masses. It somewhat alludes to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, that one piece of education or information can change your outlook on life.

Though both Hayek and Marx have what seems like criticisms for almost every point the other makes, it is hard to argue in favor of one over the other. Because in theory they both look good, it is what is done in reality that matters. Man is fallible and therefore likely to exploit his or her position in both societies, Communism and Capitalism